# Since CIGAR SMOKERS are an OPPRESSED MINORITY, Do you AGREE that....................?



## vuttomundo (Jul 22, 2013)

Do you agree that there needs to be a state/safe haven for cigar smokers. Cigar smokers are losing their rights everywhere. You cant escape the nanny state control freaks like Bloomberg. Everything that Bloomberg wants when it comes to tobacco is going global. Even France now has a smoking ban. With all these smoking bans in bars, smoking bans in restaurants, smoking bans in tobacco shops, smoking bans outside, smoking bans in your car, smoking bans in your house, out of control cigar taxes, and the extreme new regulations that could put the cigar industry out of business. They want to ban walk in humidors, ban cigar sampling, ban cigar events, ban flavored cigars, ban cigar hats/shirts, ban mail order cigars and anything possible to piss off cigar smokers. 

I think cigar smokers need to be separated from those people and live in their own separate state. Cigar smokers can have their state and the anti tobacco zealots can have their state but both cannot co exist under the same government. Create a cigar safe haven where theres no regulations or taxes on cigars, and let private businesses get to decide whether their establishment is smoking or no smoking. Cigar smokers could more there, enjoy their cigars in peace and not have to worry about people like Bloomberg or the American Cancer Society or the Tobacco Free Kids taking their rights away. Wer like the Jews before Israel was created and need a place to live. Before Israel was created, Jews had no where to move to or live their way of life. Thats how things are becoming for cigar smokers. Smoking bans, ridiculous taxation and regulation of cigars are going global. If you see whats going in in Canada and Europe, their tobacco stores are forced to hide the cigars behind the counter. So this means you wont be able to look, touch, smell or feel the cigar before you buy it. As long as cigar smokers are far too outnumbered by those who dont smoke cigars, then those who dont smoke cigars are gonna continue to vote to take your rights away and theres nothing you could do about it. This means a cigar safe haven is necessary. Good idea or not? Should cigar smokers have their own safe haven?


----------



## tnlawyer (Jul 17, 2013)

Start by GTFO of NY :laugh:


----------



## dgold21 (Jul 7, 2007)

_Oppressed_?? Comparing a cigar smoker not being able to light up to _the plight of the Jewish people_?

:new_all_coholic: opcorn:


----------



## JustinThyme (Jun 17, 2013)

I do, no matter the bans no one can tell me I cant smoke on my own property.
Yeah Bloomberg is nuts right down to limiting the size of soft drinks. If nobody is standing up to him and causing a stink in the other direction it certainly isn't going to change. Some states do have laws about smoking in your vehicle citing it as a distraction. They all have laws against the use of cell phones too yet when driving down the road the biggest abusers bar none of cell phone use is the officers that are supposed to be enforcing it. Personally I dont use my cell phone in the car while moving and damn sure dont text. It wasnt that long ago that if you wanted to make a call you had to pull over and find a pay phone. There is no call or text that is so important that it is worth risking my life or the lives of others to where it cant wait until I get to my destination or if I was expecting the call to pull over somewhere. I do smoke stogies in my car though. It relaxes me and makes me have a "I give less than a f**k attitude" about all the butt fleas in this area that are in a hurry to go nowhere. I just get over to the right and let the freaks duke it out. It may mean I get to my destination 5 mins later but Im perfectly OK with that, gives me 5 more minutes on my stogie! The freaks dont have the tolerance to arrive 5 seconds later.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

I don't even agree with your use of the phrase "Oppressed Minority"... I imagine this would be better situated in the Tobacco Legislation forum.


----------



## tnlawyer (Jul 17, 2013)

I can think of a hundred and one reasons to secede, but tobacco legislation is not one of them.


----------



## MDS (Dec 4, 2012)

Well there needs to be more of a focus on local government allowing locales such as NYC to do their thing but not force the same rules on folks a couple hundred miles away in the same state who in large part oppose the measures. Worse yet, of course, is national regulation.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

vuttomundo said:


> Cigar smokers can have their state and the anti tobacco zealots can have their state but both cannot co exist under the same government.


What the hell are you talking about? Why are cigar smokers any more special than cigarrete addicts, weed lovers, people who drive cars to work, fat-arses, or gays? Should we not have a different state for each of them? What you are talking about is going back to "separate but equal". That worked out well, didn't it?

The idea of a "separate" state is just silly.

It's a matter of respecting personal choice. To encroach on it is a characteristic of extreme dictatorship. Also known as fascism.

My University has a smoking ban. I don't give a rat's ass about it. Every morning, I light a toro to go with my coffee. Tons of people walk by me, including professors and staff, and none ever complained. I don't hide the fact that I smoke on campus, and no one has ever reminded me of the ban. If they did, it would make a great conversation starter.

Civil disobedience: learn it, live it, love it.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

MDS said:


> Well there needs to be more of a focus on local government allowing locales such as NYC to do their thing but not force the same rules on folks a couple hundred miles away in the same state who in large part oppose the measures. Worse yet, of course, is national regulation.


Not even local government. I live in Houston, a monster which spans over 50 miles. I live right on the edge, so, should someone 50 miles away from me, whom I will most likely never meet make decisions for me? How about someone two miles from me? NO!! Not even my next door neighbour has the darn right to tell me what to do. Legislation is just a sneaky way to achieve the latter.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

mrnuke said:


> Civil disobedience: learn it, live it, love it.


In all frankness, comparing flagrant violation of a campus' tobacco policy to the lunch counter sit-ins of the Civil Rights movement, or the peaceful protests against REAL oppression in other countries by filing it under the term "Civil Disobedience" is a bit misguided in my opinion. Civil disobedience is not about bucking the system to further your own personal individualism, it is about peacefully standing up for the betterment of a collective population/society. Having a cigar with your coffee is about you wanting to smoke with your breakfast (not that there is anything wrong with this mind you), but it is hardly doing anything to accomplish a better community for all those around you.


----------



## Wicked_Rhube (Jul 29, 2012)

Setting the cigar movement back 50 years.....


----------



## FireRunner (Jul 19, 2012)

Oppressed? No. You are overacting. You may want to rethink your wording considered how the term "oppressed" has been used in our nation's history.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

Tobias Lutz, I have to disagree with your statement. Lunch sit-ins are completely distinct from Ghandi-ism, and I never claimed that ignoring a tobacco policy is similar to either. What all three have in common is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

mrnuke said:


> Tobias Lutz, I have to disagree with your statement. Lunch sit-ins are completely distinct from Ghandi-ism, and I never claimed that ignoring a tobacco policy is similar to either. What all three have in common is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government.


I wasn't exactly referring to "Ghandi-ism", though I think it is safe to consider that as a sub-category of civil disobedience. I was referring more to peaceful protesters against ruling regimes who refuse to vacate public spaces when directly commanded by police or military forces. Their willingness to be imprisoned for the sake of free political speech is the same as the individuals who were wiling to go to jail for sitting at the lunch counters throughout the South during the 60s. They are both driven by a common goal of extending perceived inherent rights to all citizens within their society. If you did not intend to make the correlation between these things and ignoring tobacco policies, that is fine, but such a connection was implied by your use of the term civil disobedience. Your are completely correct that the three share a common refusal to obey law, but I think that misses the point. An individual who elects to rob a bank is expressing a refusal to obey law but we certainly don't applaud or encourage such behavior. I simply meant to point out that you have to question the greater inspiration behind choosing to disobey a rule or law in order to determine whether it is morally guided civil disobedience or simply an exercise in immature individualism. I personally don't see violating a campus' tobacco policy as furthering any common moral cause and I think that attempting to fly it under the radar of moral judgement by using the term civil disobedience is nothing more than self-justification.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

I believe in personal choice. I believe that adults are capable of making decisions themselves and their lives without the need of a nanny state. I'd rather die an unknown martyr than live and have things be decided for me. Before the University's smoking ban was in place, I'd always ask people around me (it can get crowded at times) if they minded my smoking. Most said "no problem", and for those who said yes, I respected their choice -- said "ok, no problem, won't smoke", and they felt so bad, that they moved to a different area.

I won't raise my gun on others, but antismokers do raise their gun on me. I'll let fate decide if that gun is ever fired.


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

Tobias Lutz said:


> I personally don't see violating a campus' tobacco policy as furthering any common moral cause and I think that attempting to fly it under the radar of moral judgement by using the term civil disobedience is nothing more than self-justification.


Hear, hear!

I don't like being told what to do when it comes to most anything. That's why I live in a small village in the Rocky Mountains in northern New Mexico.

If ya live somewhere where ya don't like the laws, move, or deal with it.

And don't pat yerself on the back for being a scofflaw. There aint nada cool about that. Especially when it comes to smoking. If the law states it, then folks got a RIGHT to be free from yer smoke.

I live somewhere where I can smoke most anywhere, but I'm damn careful about who I smoke around. If there are kids/oldfolks/or anyone around that just doesn't like my smoke, I use snuff instead. (Except for cigarette smokers. They often tend to sit down RIGHT next to me, light up, then bitch at me about my pipe/stogey. They can just plain go to hell.)


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

You are lucky to live in a free-choice part of the country. I also salute you for your respect of non-smokers.

We take care of our handicapped people the best we can. Often, I'm on the bus, and a person in a wheelchair wants to take a short trip. Five minutes to lower the ramp, get the person in, make room, and strap them safely. Another five minutes for them to get off the bus. We take good care of them, and often, with a sense of pride. Why can't we do the same for anyone, regardless of what their weakness may be.

For the first sixteen years of my life I lived in a country where most people smoked. At home, in bars, in restaurants, at work, in their office, in the train, etc. When I was a kid, the smoke floated above my height. It never bothered me. Could I smell burning tobacco? Sure. Was it overpowering or discomforting? No. People were always courteous to make sure they don't fill an enclosed space with smoke, and they made sure the smoke would find its way away from me and other non-smokers. They would either open a window if it was possible, or smoke where they would not bother non-smokers. There was a mutual respect, which, I would argue, was free of compromise. A solution based on common sense and respect is much more successful than any legislative solution.

Nobody had to "move" to a smoker-friendly place. In my view, that proposition is silly.

EDIT: I am not proposing that one should ignore a law they do not like. I am only stating that civil disobedience is "valid" when an individual truly believes that that law should be changed, and is prepared to deal with the consequences of disobeying that law.


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

mrnuke said:


> You are lucky to live in a free-choice part of the country. I also salute you for your respect of non-smokers.


Lucky? What? No way!

I live here because I moved here, on purpose, to be HERE. The wind does not blow me hither and yon. I am exactly where I am through planning and effort.

And why do you salute me for respecting other's rights to not have to smell/breathe smoke? You have made it plain that you don't care about others right to be free from smoke. You light up where is not allowed, act like it's cute, and bandy around terms like "civil disobedience".



mrnuke said:


> EDIT: I am not proposing that one should ignore a law they do not like. I am only stating that civil disobedience is "valid" when an individual truly believes that that law should be changed, and is prepared to deal with the consequences of disobeying that law.


Son,(I'm assuming here that yer less than half my age, and just maybe you don't have the cultural context to appreciate the terms yer using) yer usage of "civil disobedience" is fairly offensive. You not being allowed to smoke cigars on yer college campus may be irritating to you, but it's just so much sand in yer crotch. Nothing life threating, nada degrading. You don't have to ride on the back of the bus, yer allowed to sit and eat at any restaurant, no-one is gonna linch ya for something you have no control over, you don't have to work twice as hard for half the pay.

Using the term "Civil Disobedience" like this is ludicrous.

Breaking smoking laws because you feel yer "right" to a stogie is more important than others rights to be free from smoke, is self-centered and anti-social.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

You are mis-paraphrasing me. I am withdrawing myself from this conversation.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Anyone but me notice the OP hasn't been back? I am also unconvinced that he was serious about founding a new country, or state, "Cig-topia", or whatever. I rather think this to be "strictly for entertainment purposes."

The ideas he uses to stitch together his yarn are indeed problematic. There are no less than two Constitutional Ammendments, which protect one's right to ingest anything he/she wishes, be it heroin, or hockey pucks . However, over the years, we have not only sat on our asses, complacently, while our personal freedoms were unraveled, but we elected and paid people to do it.

The sheer irony of the anti-tobacco lobby can hardly be overlooked. Without tobacco, there would be no America. In 1607, the british sent colonists to Virginia. Why? The history books would lead us to believe it was to pick up gold that was simply lying around everywhere. The fact is, they were sent to grow tobacco. Spain had always enjoyed and jealously, often violently, protected an iron clad monopoly on tobacco. England had become the second largest consumer of tobacco on the planet and needed an independent source. The American war for independence was funded largely by tobacco money. The impact of tobacco on our society was recognized as being so singular and significant, the dome of our capital is wreathed in tobacco leaves. The fact that it's become so villified recently is indeed short sighted and embarrassing.

Laws are not there simply because one stupid person with a lot of free time made them up. Laws are made in response to the loudest, most aggressive proponent. My point is, if you want to protect a personal freedom, GET OFF YOUR ASS.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

Herf N Turf said:


> GET OFF YOUR ASS.


I wrote my state senator to oppose a proposed statewide smoking ban (the bill never passed committee in the end). His response: "I'll keep your views in mind".
I live in an unicorporated part of Houston, which does not have representation in the city council. I've signed every possible petition against expanding FDA power. Short of getting myself arrested to raise awarness, what else could I possibly do so that I am NOT ON MY ASS.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

mrnuke said:


> what else could I possibly do so that I am NOT ON MY ASS.


I could be wrong, but I think Don's comment was more in response to the OPs original manifesto. I don't believe he was trying to criticize you.

EDIT:

And I empathize with the response from your senator. I get the same form letter bs whenever I email the politicians who are supposed to be representing me.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Indeed, everything isn't always about ME.

Then again, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean the whole world's NOT out to get me!


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

Deep inside, you know somone was going to ask.


----------



## sullen (Sep 10, 2013)

Well first step of getting rid of bloomberg is today. Let's just hope Lota doesn't get elected....
Today has been a breath of fresh air for the first time in a loooooong time.


----------



## jcullen24 (Sep 7, 2013)

There is a place like what you mentioned.

God Bless TEXAS!


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

jcullen24 said:


> There is a place like what you mentioned.
> 
> God Bless TEXAS!


I looked up Denton, TX, and it does have a smoking ordinance. It's not as restrictive as Houston's, but it's definitely a step in the wrong direction. That's how Houston started: a seemingly reasonable ordinance in 2005, followed by an outright ban two years later.

Brother, I think it is time you write your city council and let them know if you think they've gone too far.


----------

